Let's talk about the new Cadillac CT6 and why it's a big deal.

[Jesda]

Oh, I understand the luxury car market pretty well. It might be you that doesn't fully appreciate that there are different types of buyers than you in the overall car market. It might shock you that I am not the only one that views reliability as important as cutting edge technology in a vehicle purchase.

No. You understand the luxury market in the context of the past at a time when mainstream cars were, for the most part, terribly built, opening the door for Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti. It's when mechanical dependability really was a luxury.
Where it's going now is entirely different. Finer goods are desired not for their real-world durability, but for their intricacy and complexity, for the perceived level of engineering and reputed capability. No one buys a mechanical luxury timepiece because it's dependable. They buy them because they are complicated machines that can be fawned over and admired.

Lexus arrived as a bargain brand with quality that exceeded its rivals. It lost its place in the market because the quality gap closed while its rivals moved forward with performance and design. The luxury market's emphasis on perceived reliability has declined because it is no longer a competitive advantage.

Look at the data over the course of ten years. Look at the defect rates. Look at how much narrower the gap is between the bottom and top of the pack. This is why you won't see a top-tier brand tout its dependability advantages. It's no longer a distinguishing trait.

Even Tesla, as they've suffered from interior rattles and high rates of drive unit failures on the Model S, enjoys a golden reputation because it has advanced the meaning of "automobile" in a way its rivals haven't. This is modern luxury.


Reliability doesn't sell luxury cars anymore because reliability is no longer perceived to be a luxury. It doesn't matter what you value or what I value. This is where the market is moving. Early adopters and people who want to be perceived as forward-thinking individuals want to be on the cusp of what's next.


These people, unlike us, have entirely different values when it comes to vehicle purchases. It isn't always rational, but that's how the luxury market works.

[Jesda]

As for the CT6, don't be surprised to see the next S-class adopt Cadillac's weight-saving engineering. The new 7-series has already moved in this direction with its carbon core.

At the moment, Cadillac is the industry leader in chassis development. MB has the advantage in reputation, exterior fit/finish, engines, and interior furnishings. Tesla has displayed tremendous expertise in packaging.

[Bubba1]

Jesda, you make some nice arguments, unfortunately they lose some oomph when you factor in that the average demographic for a new Cadillac buyer is financially comfortable non enthusiast that is significantly older than even me. And I'm older than you. No argument that Cadillac might be a leader in chassis development. . I'm simply suggesting that your technical terror cutting edge stuff doesn't really matter as much to the kinda person that actually buys a new Cadillac than someone like you: who is younger, into technology and never buys a new car. I'm actually closer to their current target audience than you. Yes, of course, Caddy's trying to market to a younger, more technologically "savvy" (or is a better term "dependent?" ) new car buyer by offering performance, technologically advanced, and smaller, less pricey models. Keep in mind they've tried the smaller route a few times over the years and failed badly. Remember the Cimarron and Catera? Oh yeah, them. Unfortunately, the ATS is trending much like the Catera. Promising design, better handling, sportier, and it bombed as it developed an awful reputation for below average reliability. The ATS is a nice driving new car, especially the performance version. But the reliability thus far has been as bad as the Catera, which is big warning sign. It souns like "deja vu all over again." If GM does not address ATS reliability soon, they risk another Catera-like belly flop. Fewer buyers are gonna want to buy a new ATS for a DD if they're considered unreliable. And that's my argument , you consider reliability an old fashioned concept, I think it's still very much relevant today, even more so for a marque like your beloved Cadillac that sells primarily to old farts who expect it.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

^I was going to make the same argument as Joel. A lot of the cadillac buyers I know are getting older. These are the same people that have a microwave from the late 70s because "it still works. There's nothing wrong with it".
These are people with "reliability" and "well-built" burned into their brain.

Not to say that these aren't 100% of the buyers... but its definitely one of the demographics. I'm also seeing more and more of these people transition to Buick as Cadillac stiffens up the suspension in order to take the fight to BMW.

[RicerX]

Both sides of the Jesda v Joel argument make fantastic points, and I'd like to take the opportunity to say that you're both right with the following two statistics:

The Cadillac brand holds the third highest average age buyer among any automaker (luxury and non-luxury), topped only by Buick and Lincoln.

The Cadillac brand currently trails Audi, Lexus, Mercedes, and BMW in sales in the American market, and even worse in the global market.

Regarding the emphasis over reliability - with the way the car market itself is changed, I would say the desire for reliability (focused on the mechanics of said vehicle) is more accurately translated to "the desire to not be terribly inconvenienced with my driving experience". Today, we have concierge services built into luxury cars that activate whenever there is a failure - you don't even have to call anyone. They call you! In the car... on its own communication device that isn't your cell phone. They send a tow, they transport you to the nearest service center, and they give you a car to drive until the problem is rectified. That's a far cry from having to hoof it 8 miles to a pay phone if your car quits. I'll admit - I haven't even changed the Q50's oil myself yet. 12k miles. I have been too damn crazy and busy, and it's all the more justified when they hand me a G37 to drive (for free) until they finish changing my oil for me. I have never done that with any of my cars before this one (I have also never been a new-ish manager with a 2 month old at home before, so there's that). Now there is a threshold there - if I have to have them give me another car twice a week to fix the one I bought because it's a bucket of s***, then sure. But for the most part, on that front Jesda is on point about Land Rover with respect to this topic.

To close, I would argue that legacy buyers tend to emphasize familiarity over reliability. Was reliability the deciding factor for baby boomers with respect to their chosen brands? Incredibly likely. However, the ensuing loyalty to that brand suggested by the average age statistics seems to afford some forgiveness towards slips in that original area of focus.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I agree with Jesda. I think that we're long past the era where reliability is a luxury. More importantly, luxury reliability is almost a different thing than non-luxury reliability.

Case in point:
I am chronic used-luxury-car owner. I buy them old and cheap and keep them until they fall apart.
And the DO fall apart.
But it's not the critical stuff that falls apart. It's the auxiliary stuff. You get climate control or seat heater or automatic nonsense failures.
This makes a difference for a number of different reasons

1: Because those things are not DEPENDABILITY items. They are reliability items. They do not affect your ability to depend on your car.
2: Because luxury cars have inherently MORE features, there are mathematically more things to go wrong. What's going to fail on a 1993 Chevy Metro? There's nothing TO fail. But even modern economy cars have electronics and such that can go bad; just not as many.
3: As Jesda noted, the spread in reliability between brands is relatively minuscule compared to a decade or two ago. The best are amazing but the worst aren't bad, and it's what makes up that difference that matters much more than the difference itself, which is to say a lot of minor issues is still, at the end of the day, minor issues.
4: Once again: Reliability and dependability aren't the same thing. Stuff breaking isn't always catastrophic and, as cars get more luxurious, the auxiliary stuff gets dramatically more complex, while the core stuff gains very little complexity if any at all (in fact, with modern economy cars, often the less luxurious car has a more complex powertrain in the name of efficiency and cleanliness).

So you end up with incomparable scales. Yes, stuff goes wrong in luxury cars a lot. But does it leave you stranded? Does it ruin your day? Does it make the car not worth owning or a hassle? If not, it doesn't correlate with dependability issues in your Corolla where the only possible failure is a 4-speed auto grenading itself because it shouldn't still exist in this millennium.

Apples and Oranges.

If my CT6 has a seat heater go out, it's an inconvenience.
If my Focus has its dual clutch trans grenade on the highway, it's a big problem. Now, of course, you could reverse those two. But every car has a transmission. Not every car has a seat heater. Which is going to look worse if we're just counting failures? That's why I've never liked JD Power or Consumer Reports metrics for car quality.

[RicerX]

^ case in point to the above: the Infiniti InTouch system on the 2014 Q50. According to consumer reports, you'd think the Q50 is a worse car than the JX/Qx60 and its constant failure of a CVT. I will take a slow infotainment system over a terrible transmission any day of the week.

[Bubba1]

^ case in point to the above: the Infiniti InTouch system on the 2014 Q50. According to consumer reports, you'd think the Q50 is a worse car than the JX/Qx60 and its constant failure of a CVT. I will take a slow infotainment system over a terrible transmission any day of the week.

Fwiw, CR also said the Q50's suspension was below average for reliability as well. I do agree that the infotainment system not working can be considered more of an annoyance and won't outright strand you like a failed transmission or engine might do, But using that argument, you can say the same about premature rust. Still bad, and still something a reasonable buyer should expect not to be a problem in a new car, and it will absolutely negatively impact the driving experience after spending so much money for that vehicle. And sadly it appears a LOT of Q50 owners have had infotainment problems to the point that they felt they needed to be repaired/replaced (at least once, maybe more) while it was less than a year old and under warranty. Now think about that annoyance problem post warranty when you have to start paying to fix it. Trust me, reliability matters. Ford had similar problems w/their "myford(bad)touch" infotainment system. This thread has shown me that reliability seems to have become a more relative term lately, and less black/white to some folks. And It appears many people are willing to accept "less" reliability in their new vehicle buying decisions. I suppose that's probably a good thing or no one would buy a Fiat/Chrysler vehicle. But my point is that perception of what constitutes "acceptable reliability" does not universally apply to everyone.

[Jesda]

Jesda, you make some nice arguments, unfortunately they lose some oomph when you factor in that the average demographic for a new Cadillac buyer is financially comfortable non enthusiast that is significantly older than even me. And I'm older than you. No argument that Cadillac might be a leader in chassis development. . I'm simply suggesting that your technical terror cutting edge stuff doesn't really matter as much to the kinda person that actually buys a new Cadillac than someone like you: who is younger, into technology and never buys a new car.

I see your point, but it doesn't matter.

Try to think of this less as an auto enthusiast and tap into your business background (or whatever your background is... just think of it like a manufacturer for a moment).

Luxury is an idea rather than a hard, tangible good. That idea is an exaggeration of reality, taking a technological advancement and spinning it into the idea of total engineering greatness which in turn fosters a reputation, driving transaction prices upward and creating desirability for a good that, at the end of the day, gets you to Target at the same speed limit as the guy in a Toyota Echo.

It's the same for Timex vs Rolex. No one buys a fancy watch to tell the time. They buy it because they believe that they have something greater than its function, something with design and complexity that adds up to more than its basic purpose. It's the feeling they buy, not the ability to tell time.

No one who buys a BMW knows whether their car is front or rear drive or where the Nurburgring is. They only know that somewhere, at some point in time, BMW built performance cars and demonstrated its capability. BMW built its image around its specialty performance vehicles and that idea finds its way into the rest of the product portfolio, even if it's only through brand association. Even as the brand churns out hideous CUV after hideous CUV for fat American housewives and wealthy Chinese people who pay others to drive them, the public still thinks "BMW = performance"

This is why manufacturers build halo cars, specialty performance vehicles, and flashy designs. It isn't to actually make money (often, high-end vehicles are money losers). Rather, it's to create an image of luxury and performance that mainstream buyers vaguely understand technologically but latch on to emotionally.

The opposite of this effect is the Mercedes CLA, taking a brand that's earned its place at the top (you know, by inventing the car as we know it) and slapping its revered logo on a colossal turd. But MB is one of few brands that can get away with it. That's how branding works. That's what you can do when you spend a hundred+ years pushing the envelope and (with noteworthy exceptions) striving for greatness.

Lighter, faster, more technologically clever cars are about image, and image allows a brand to charge more. And once in a while, they move the notion of the automobile forward, toward greater safety, performance, and efficiency that trickles down into cheaper cars.

This is why the conservative Lexus model became unsustainable. You have to produce the real deal in order to charge a premium for the lesser goods. For too long, Cadillac built shoddy cars that traded on the brand's heritage. Now they're building cars that far exceed their reputation and lead the industry in several ways.

That's what makes the CT6 (and its platform mates) so interesting and important. As a business enthusiast, I'm excited to see if the investment pays off. As an auto enthusiast, you should be giddy as Cadillac leads the industry away from fatter, duller, number cars.

Who could have imagined that in 2016, Cadillac would be cutting weight while its rivals stayed pudgy?

[Bubba1]

I see your point, but it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter... to YOU. LOL, for a brief moment I thought I was discussing this topic with Donald Trump.

As far as the different things other manufacturers do, there's another perspective to that too . One could also argue, that those marques better understand what their core clientele want, which keeps their sales strong year after year. Cadillac lags significantly behind them. why is that? Perhaps it's because they're still a bit out of touch with their core audience. why design an unreliable car that appeals to a younger guy like you who does not even buy new cars when their long time main demographic is a lot older and does care about reliability? GM has a problem on their hands, and has had this problem for decades. It's fine that they want to appeal to younger folks, but they'll have trouble getting there by alienating their current core clientele by charging a premium for a car that STILL has more problems as compared to it's competition. And given it's somewhat unflattering recent history, Cadillac doesn't have the "luxury" to ignore reliability during their attempted change of direction as you feel they can. Yes, of course their cars have gotten better, but so has the rest of the industry, and evidently even moreso than Cadillac judging by recent reliability surveys. Face it, Cadillac still has a way to go to reach the industry wide level of respect that you've already assumed they have achieved as a fan.

[Jesda]

It doesn't matter... to YOU.

It doesn't matter... to the luxury market.

It's not rational or practical. I don't personally understand it. I can only observe it, describe it, and explain it to you.

[Bubba1]

It doesn't matter... to YOU.

It doesn't matter... to the luxury market.

It's not rational or practical. I don't personally understand it. I can only observe it, describe it, and explain it to you.

If it didn't matter to the luxury market, wouldn't it make sense for Cadillac to have stronger sales than they do now? That suggests there's probably more to it than what you think you know and have explained to me.

[asoomal]

I disagree, the vast majority of today's vehicles aren't designed to last for a very long time.

The luxury buyer isn't adversely affected by defects the way a lower-end buyer is. Why? Because being left on the side of the road in a used Versa means you lose your job, lose your home, lose your life. Being inconvenienced by a defective late model Audi A8, for example, (as annoying as it may be) isn't the end of the world. You have a cushion to fall on; your presumed level of professional importance means you have wiggle room in case you need a tow to the dealer. You're also likely to be salaried so the opportunity cost isn't as severe.

The priorities at the higher end of the market are very, very different. It's how Land Rover can sell so many awful SUVs while continuing to rise in prestige and credibility. It's how MB got away with a decade-long slump in quality. There are other values associated with luxury cars.

I feel like that you're stereotyping the owners based on what they drive. A large number of luxury cars today are owned by middle class people who depend on them as much as the college freshmen depends on his Versa.

An example of this would be someone who works in the real estate field, how many agents have you seen not in luxury vehicles? They depend on them as they are their daily drivers and need something that allows them to impress their clients while not being late due to a break down.
Not everybody who drives a luxury vehicle is on a salary, a large number of people who work in the labour industry are driving brand new BMW's, Mercedes and Cadillac's. There is a staggering amount of younger people, who are in their early and mid 20's already driving C, E and S classes along with 3, 5 and 7 series BMWs.

As for the reliability of modern cars, defect rates are lower, major issues are fewer, and there's a narrower quality gap between manufacturers. Check out Truedelta or JDP and look at reported defects per unit over three years.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/really-lon ... -per-year/

Thanks to advanced machines and equipment, most modern engines are able to live a long life. It's the rest of the vehicle that is poorly built. I'm talking about wheel bearings with plastic cages, CV's, plastic engine components such as water necks, electronics that go bad and are obsolete when you need a new one. Another issue which I noticed during my previous job as a driver was that these newer vehicles were not up to the task of severe duty use when compared to their older models, such as door handles that loosened up easily, seat belt buckles not lasting as long, etc. Minor things that make a big difference when it comes to reliability.

[Jesda]

If it didn't matter to the luxury market, wouldn't it make sense for Cadillac to have stronger sales than they do now? That suggests there's probably more to it than what you think you know and have explained to me.

That's exactly what I said, if you read it thoroughly as a whole.

You have to build an image, a mythology, by first building great machines. That slowly developed reputation in turn translates over the long term into sales and high transaction prices. This isn't like putting a rebate offer on a POS Altima and enjoying an immediate boost in sales. It takes several years to advance a luxury brand's esteem whether it's watches, sweaters, jeans, cars, or computers. The shortest route to that higher level is technology.

There's a reason why Lexus was able to do so well for so long with duds like the ES and RX, lifeless appliances that hardly push the envelope. It's because they built the brand on the '90-'01 LS400, the LFA, the first SC, and the Land Cruiser-based LX. You have to put in the sweat equity first to sprinkle that magic on to lesser, higher volume vehicles that sustain the brand and the dealer network. Their timing was right; back in 1989 a car like the LS was a unique, special offering. That's no longer the case.

The Mercedes E-class isn't among the world's best selling luxury sedans because it's the greatest. In reality, it's a dull, emotionless taxi. But the E-class can do the volume it can at the prices it can because of the S-class, SL, and SLS. It's a consistent car that shares a showroom with more accomplished relatives.

You can't have a great cake until you bake it properly. Cadillac is back in the baking and mixing stage. Lexus and Acura are starting over too. Risk-averse Lincoln and Infiniti decided they were fine with where they were at, likely to satisfy dealers with low-risk, lower-tier, lower-priced cars that allow the brands to exist... barely. That's a shame because Infiniti is actually turning out some nice cars, but as a luxury brand Infiniti is a complete and utter failure with zero ambition.

Go back and read my posts. Scribble down some notes and soak it in. I've pored over this industry personally and academically more than I've studied Kelly Clarkson's trash bags (she really needs to cut back on the chicken wings ).

[TgduMg]

BREAKING NEWS! In a related story it has been confirmed that the CT6 will be Cadillac's largest sedan for some time to come. The CT8? Stillborn. Sad. It could'a been a contenda!

[TgduMg]

BTW. Great thread. I sent the link to a Cadillac enthusiast friend the other day. He wants a CT6 like yesterday! I'm with the Minister on the RWD version only being available with the 4 cylinder faux pas. A "Full Size American Luxury Sedan" with a four cylinder. Really? But on the other side of the coin. The 2.0t does closely match the 270 advertised rating of the Northstar powered 1994 Seville SLS. Torn!!!

[Bubba1]

I agree, it's always fun having discussions like these with Jesda. He is 'da man.

[RicerX]

^ case in point to the above: the Infiniti InTouch system on the 2014 Q50. According to consumer reports, you'd think the Q50 is a worse car than the JX/Qx60 and its constant failure of a CVT. I will take a slow infotainment system over a terrible transmission any day of the week.

Fwiw, CR also said the Q50's suspension was below average for reliability as well.

They also say the 2016s are problematic and therefore not recommended... when they're not even on the lots yet. Tough to give metrics on an engine, transmission, and suspension system that has never been on the market before.

Enough squirreling from me... CR sucks... that's really all I'm getting at.

[RicerX]

I agree, it's always fun having discussions like these with Jesda. He is 'da man.

[Jesda]

Enough squirreling from me... CR sucks... that's really all I'm getting at.

They like to predict reliability. The problem is that they have a habit of redacting their predictions.

To anyone who has taken statistics, even at the 10th grade level, CR is cringeworthy. Heck, they don't even verify ownership.


The only value is that unlike most enthusiast publications stuffed with highly influential ads, they do some emergency handling testing.